Jump to content

Wikipedia:Copyright problems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimregan (talk | contribs) at 19:18, 14 May 2004 (=May 14= Shanghai University). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


This page is intended for listing and discussing copyright problems on Wikipedia, including pages and images which are suspected to be in violation.

If you list a page or image here, be sure to follow the instructions in the "Copyright infringement notice" section below. Page titles should stay listed for a minimum of 7 days before a decision is made.

See also: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages, Wikipedia:Image description page, Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission, Wikipedia:Sites that use Wikipedia for content, m:Do fair use images violate the GFDL?, m:Fair use, Wikipedia:Fair use, copyright

Alternatives

In addition to nominating potential copyvios for deletion, you could:

  • Replace the article's text with new (re-written) content of your own: This can be done on a temp page, so that the original "copyvio version" may be deleted by a sysop. Temp versions should be written at a page like: [[PAGE NAME/temp]]. If the original turns out to be not a copyvio, these two can be merged.
  • Write to the owner of the copyright to check whether they gave permission (or maybe they in fact posted it here!).
  • Ask for permission - see wikipedia:boilerplate request for permission, Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission

If you believe Wikipedia is infringing your copyright, you may choose to raise the issue using Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation. Alternatively, you may choose to contact Wikipedia's designated agent under the terms of the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act.

Actions to take for text

Remove the text of the article, and replace it with the following:

{{msg:copyvio1}}
<place URL of allegedly copied material here>
{{msg:copyvio2}}
~~~~
'''Rewrite article at: [[<replace with article name>/Temp]]'''

Where you replace "<place URL of allegedly copied material here>" with the Web address (or book or article reference) that contains the original source text. After removing the suspected text violation add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Actions to take for images

If you suspect an image is violating copyright, add the following to the image description page:


{{msg:imagevio1}}

<explain reason for suspicion here>

{{msg:imagevio2}} ~~~~

After adding the text to the image information page add an entry on this page under the List of possible copyright infringements section.

Amazon copyrights

An interest has been expressed in the Wikipedia community to use images from Amazon.com, particularly with regard to cover art from commercial music recordings (albums).

When approached about permission to use images from their site, Amazon.com's official response was that such permission simply wasn't theirs to give. They say that the copyrights still belong to the holders of copyrights in the original works.

At this time, there is no official Wikipedia policy for or against using Amazon.com as a source of images such as album cover art. Note, however, that Wikipedia copyright policy is still in effect—uploaded images' descriptions should still contain proper attribution, a copyright notice if copyrighted, and a fair-use rationale if fair use is being claimed. (Simply make sure that the copyright is attributed to the true copyright holder and not Amazon.com.) For specific guidelines on images and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Image_guidelines.

Possible copyright violation in Page History

Image deletion problems

April 16


April 18

April 19

  • Image:Jannat al Baqi.jpg — taken from [27] which doesn't seem to have information on the image's copyright. The uploader seems to have assumed that lack of copyright information means public domain. — Timwi 14:59, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, educational and attribution (link to site) aren't a problem (educational because we always use it in association with an educational article) but "non-profit" would restrict some reusers. Not a copyright infringement here, though it should be tagged to indicate that it's for non-profit (essentially non-commercial) use only, so people who don't qualify don't use it inadvertently and to indicate that something more free is desired. Jamesday 12:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

April 21

  • Image:Grb.gif from [28] (URL [29]). The site says: "The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2001 MyMacedonia.net . All Rights Reserved". --Romanm 10:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • This picture is picture of Coat of arms. I don`t know if anyone can hold copyright for national coat of arms in Slovenia but in Macedonia coa cannot be copyrighted, the same thing is with other state symbols like flag and anthem.If I sing national anthem on the tv I am not gonna get arrested for singing it because it is public.Also[[30]] was taken from[[31]] but you are not arguing about that! Why?BECAUSE CoA is PUBLIC and Zeljko Heimer doesn`t own Slovenia . Slovenia is country of it`s people just like CoA, Flag and Anthem! Avala 14:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • Coat of arms cannot be copyrighted by itself. But, if a person draws or photographs coat of arms, he may own the copyright to his drawing or his picture of coat of arms. Andris 21:18, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)
          • It is too hard to determinate if somebody has drawn it. I think it has too look artistic and it is definitely not a case with Image:Grb.gif.
  • Seems most unlikely to be a problem. The original image source looks to be the web site of the president of Macedonia [32] according to [33]. The purpose of such images is the use of an officially sourced image to identify the place, so a use in an article about the place is unlikely to be anything other than fair use. Replacing the image with the one from the presidential site, to be certain that that is where the one we have here came from, would be prudent. Even without doing that, though, the image is obviously a minimally changed derivative work and that in US law won't get the person who did the conversion a new copyright of their own. Jamesday 12:27, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

  • User:Jondel
    • I checked all of his edits until 16:09, 22 Apr 2004. Not all seem to be Copyvio, many are minor changes, but there are a couple of articles that he created that seem to be copied straight from the WWW. I think I see a honest effort, but lack of knowledge about copyright. chris_73 07:36, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)



April 24

  • Image:Obelisk.sk.jpg - looks like a copyrighted YU-GI-OH! card. RickK 00:02, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Almost certainly is. And used in an article about the card, as it is, it's fair use. It's transformative (not a playing card but a picture of one for a description) and in the context of a well established fair use commentary situation. Jamesday 12:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

  • Image:Lan_wrc04_2.jpg -- from [41] as first edit by a new user. TimothyPilgrim 12:46, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)
    • Where at the Mitsubishi site is the matching image? The image here is larger, of clearly better quality (try reading the text on the car) and has a different color balance from the one at the URL you gave. Did you mean another one somewhere else on the site? It seems very likely that the image here is from a press release of some sort and is going to be fair use in the context of an article about the car. Jamesday 13:17, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

user:Avala

There seem to be quite a number of straight copies from other sources. Not sure which ones have copyright or not. I checked the users text contributions marked (new) up to 20:16, 26 Apr 2004. In case of doubt, i did not list it here. I did also not check the uploaded images. Here's the list of doubtful entries. -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 14:15, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just don`t see different way to rewrite pure facts. If you want to do that OK. But I don`t speak English that GOOD!Avala 19:55, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
OK I will try to do it but I will need some grammar help!Avala 12:57, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I also made all articles with /TempAvala
OK, I've tweaked the grammar, and, in some cases added links to, Stojkovic thru Radulovic where appropriate. Niteowlneils 02:39, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Assembly of Serbia, english parts from [42], totally not formatted serbian parts (including table code and all) from [43]
  • MlaÄ?an DinkiÄ?, copied straight from [44], including the character errors in the name.
    • this is not copyrighted website-just info where he studied and what postitons he held in past years
  • FK Sartid from [45]
  • Miroljub Labus from [46], with very minor changes
    • this is not copyrighted website-just info where he studied and what postitons he held in past years

(Removed a bunch that are now resolved. --Delirium 05:26, May 8, 2004 (UTC))

April 27

Goodyear Inflatoplane from [47], same poster as two above. RickK 05:07, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

April 28

  • Has now been rephrased. May have been public domain, anyway. Kevin Saff 14:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Claim of public domain. (Still a question of whether these belong here.) Kevin Saff 14:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • This has now been rephrased. Kevin Saff 14:56, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • I can most certanly say that that Einstein's Puzzle did not come from that page, it is much older ( in fact, i remember solving it in 12 minutes at the age of 14 ), i cannot speak for the other pages but that page most certanly did not originally come from that url, he may have copied it from there but that is not it's original origin. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:03, 2004 Apr 27 (UTC)
        • You're probably right. I guess I don't know the copyright status of things like this, and became overzealous when I saw that all of this user's edits were copy/pastes from other websites. Kevin Saff 14:56, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Gramophone Awards from [48]. Maximus Rex 04:43, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Take out the first paragraph (or rewrite it) and the rest of this article is just noncopyrightable facts. RickK 04:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)


April 30

May 1


  • User:Danuas uploads copyrighted images into Wikipedia. One such file (Image:Org.jpg) is now deleted after having been listed here for a week; however, there are more images of the same status: Image:Frederik IX.jpg, Image:Prince Joachim.jpg, Image:Princess Alexandra.jpg, Image:Org1.jpg, perhaps more. Like Image:Org.jpg, they have been copied from http://www.kongehuset.dk - though that site makes it very clear (and in two languages) that the images are copyrighted.
    --tsca     14:07, 2004 May 1 (UTC)
    • S/he's now re-uploaded the previously deleted Image:Org.jpg and put it back in Margrethe II of Denmark. No reaction to comments on their talk page
    • Apparently there's no way to stop someone who WANTS to violate copyrights. Still no reaction on Danuas' talk page, but a "new user" account has been established today (User:Bct88) and two more duplicates of Image:Org.jpg have been uploaded: Image:Margrethe of Denmark.jpg and Image:Margrethe II.jpg and used again in the article Margrethe II of Denmark (see also here). This definitely looks like intentional cop. viol.
      --tsca       08:24, 2004 May 6 (UTC)
    • More of the same this afternoon/evening. Don't worry too much -- someone will come and mumble the magic words "fair use!" in their general direction and then everything will be all right. (harumph) –Hajor 22:18, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tsca, you wrote on the image description pages that the images were "copyright infringements", not "possible copyright infringements". Please say why you're sure that they are infringing. I went looking for a copyrigt notice or anything other thanthe moral rights credits to photographers and didn't find anything. Does anyone have a link to them in one or more languages? It seems likely that these are press release images and our use would be in accord with normal fair use of such images. Jamesday 03:34, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know how you could miss the copyright notice! A short version in English(1) is All rights reserved by the Royal House and the photographers listed below. . However, the long version in Danish(2) explicitly states that the use of the portrait-photographs is disallowed! - and they even give legal basis for this claim (infringements will violate "§ 1 om god markedsføringsskik, varemærkelovens § 14 & straffelovens § 132"). Links: 1 2
        --tsca         08:43, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

May 2

John Maynard Smith

add to this deletion debate

Template:VfD-Image:John Maynard Smith.jpg

May 3

Not a copyvio, see talk page. (I don't know the procedure here, should I remove the page from here or should I just leave a note?) theresa knott 20:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 4

May 5

Contributor acknowledged problem and is seeking permission. Rmhermen 21:25, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Saturday Night Live from [90] –Hajor 18:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is proper Wikipedia procedure being followed in the Copyvio investigation going on for Saturday Night Live ? - Bevo 03:02, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main point is that the discussion should be at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#May 5. As it is an article with a long editing history - at what point the copyvio was introduced? We only delete articles completely if they were a copyvio from beginning, if someone adds a copyvio later we normally just revert to the last good version before. Whether a copyvio in the editing history is still a copyvio is a grey area. Our developers are working on a possibility to delete single versions in the editing history, yet IMHO we don't need to delete all those copyvios in the histories as soon as its possible. So for this article the standard way would be to revert to the last copyright free version, or if it's just a section of the article which is a copyvio just delete that section. andy 09:13, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been A LOT of people who have worked on this article, they can't have all been writing copyright vios. Are you saying that the last thing put there by the last anon is a copyvio? Then why not just revert to a non copyvio version? RickK 03:35, 6 May 2004 (UTC) [reply]
    • My confusion about procedure; apologies. I'll revert to the last pre-copyvio version. There'll still be copyvios in the history, of course. –Hajor 13:23, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burco - erm, first time for me. Went to the new page and it had content which ended with a copyright notice, so it wasn't a tough call. I'm assuming you can look at the content using 'history', since the boilerplate I chose implies I was right to remove the text. Please advise/change/sort out. ;o) --bodnotbod 00:24, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Used with permission images

These are all "used with permission" images (or have no info as to source) and thus cannot be used by third parties, thus they are not in the spirit of the GNUFDL and hinder the redistribution of Wikipedia content. Jimbo Wales said we cannot use those type of images as a result. [99] --mav 21:04, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of these images merely require credit and do not otherwise restrict usage. Since we are required by the GFDL to maintain authorship information, I don't see how that is incompatible. —Morven 21:30, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of removing those from the above list and re-classifying them as fairuse. --mav

Image:Amcoa.jpg Image:LondonEye1.jpg Image:BARBER01.jpg Image:Nokia-mobilephoneearpiece010.jpg Image:Billy Price.jpg Image:Belcourt.jpg Image:W D Hamilton.jpg Image:Ascaphus truei.jpg Image:Peppered moth Biston betularia betularia f carbonaria.jpg

Regarding Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg please note that the permission that was obtained is for use on Wikipedia. If explicit clarification is required regarding redistribution, the person who granted permission should be consulted. See Image:MyosinUnrootedTree.jpg for further details. Peak 05:52, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It's been here before. It's a computer generated image using an standard presentation in the field for factual information. As such, it is ineligible for copyright.Jamesday 12:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Enblocclips.jpg

The license says in part Feel free to use them for any pro-RKBA web pages and publications. Therefore we do not have a license because we are seeking to be neutral, not in favor of the US concept of the right to bear arms. I doubt that this is fair use so this appears to be infringing. Jamesday 13:31, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Peppered moth Biston betularia betularia f typica.jpg

This appears to be an accurate scientific photograph. Does anyone see any sign of artistic creativity in lighting or other aspects of the presentation? Recall that in the US there must be some creativity to have copyright. Jamesday 13:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RomanChariot.jpg Image:RomanChariotBig.jpg

Image:ByzantineChariot.jpg Image:ByzantineChariotBig.jpg Image:Krak1.jpg Image:Krak2.jpg

I uploaded Image:RomanChariot.jpg, Image:ByzantineChariot.jpg, Image:RomanChariotBig.jpg, Image:ByzantineChariotBig.jpg, Image:Krak1.jpg, Image:Krak2.jpg, and also Image:GreekChariot.jpg, Image:GreekChariotBig.jpg, Image:PatroclusChariot.jpg, and Image:PatroclusChariotBig.jpg, which may be problems. Unfortunately I didn't think to make copies of the e-mail exchanges, but the Roman chariot picture is an ancient mosaic and the website's claim to copyright may be spurious. Same for the "Patroclus" and "Greek" ones. The Byzantine chariot pic and the pics of Krak des Chevalier are a bit more difficult - the people who took the photos said we could use them, and they seemed to understand the license, but if that's not good enough then I guess removing them is the only option. Sorry! Adam Bishop 22:01, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
A claim of fair use may be in order then - that is one reason why those were the only images I did not remove from the article. --mav 22:05, 3 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
The site appears to be trying to present an accurate rendition of an out of copyright Roman period work, so I see no potential for a valid copyright on the public domain mural Image:RomanChariot.jpg and Image:RomanChariotBig.jpg. Same for Image:GreekChariot.jpg, Image:GreekChariotBig.jpg, Image:PatroclusChariot.jpg, and Image:PatroclusChariotBig.jpg. No creativity so no fair use - no copyright at all - public domain. Jamesday 12:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to accept the statement from Adam that he requested permission, was granted permission by those who understood the license and that the images Image:ByzantineChariot.jpg Image:ByzantineChariotBig.jpg Image:Krak1.jpg Image:Krak2.jpg are therefore released under the GFDL. Jamesday 12:52, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JohnBalance.png Image:JohnBallance.png Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png Image:NormanKirk.png Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png

I was the one who uploaded the images of New Zealand prime ministers: Image:JohnBalance.png, Image:JohnBallance.png, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.jpeg, Image:MichaelJosephSavage.png, Image:NormanKirk.png, Image:KeithJackaHolyoake.png, Image:SirWilliamFergusonMassey.png, and one or two others. I did so with the explicit permission of the National Library of New Zealand, which holds the rights to those images. At the time, I believed that Wikipedia text and Wikipedia images were treated separately under our implementation of the GDFL. I based this on Wikipedia:Copyrights, which merely says (at the top) that the text of Wikipedia is under the GDLF. Looking at things more closely, however, I see that I was mistaken in my interpretations - the same page also says "We do not allow special permission content to be included in Wikipedia since such content cannot be used by downstream users of Wikipedia content unless they also obtain permission." As these images most definitely cannot be used by third parties without permission (or even on other Wikipedia pages without permission), they should be removed as quickly as possible - the National Library was very explicit on that point. The permission for using these images is null and void unless we can adhere to their terms, and it appears that we don't. It's unfortunate, since I think the images do improve the articles, but I suppose that's just how these things work. I apologise for my mistake. -- Vardion 00:24, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
We all make mistakes - no big deal. :) I see they also claimed copyright to some public domain images. I fixed that since it is a bogus claim. We still might be able to use the images under the fair dealing/fair use doctrine. See Wikipedia:Fair use. --mav
When was each picture taken? Who took them and held the rights to them? At least one or two appear likely to be in the public domain, given the dates of death of the subjects. Jamesday 12:23, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mark Oaten.jpg

Mark Oaten is allowed, see Wikipedia:Pictures_from_libdems.org.uk, and is probably fair use anyway. Duncharris 15:53, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

May 6


May 7

May 8

  • Oscar Goodman - picture is possibly stolen from the los vegas revue jornal newspaper. no other possible source. Nut Handler 05:46, may 8 2004 (UTC).
    • The image used came directly from the official website of the City of Las Vegas and images of the Mayor and City Council are considered to be public domain. By the way if your going to put the name of a local newspaper try to get the name right, It's the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The post by Nut Handler is an obvious hoax because the IP address they use originates from Guardster.com an anonymous web surfing website. The picture of Oscar Goodman will be restored. Misterrick 06:38 8 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Shouldn't we be blocking Guardster.com, if it is an anonymizing proxy?
  • Fritz Pregl, 1923 Nobel laureate in Chemistry - the whole thing is rather thinly paraphrased from the official nobel.se biography ([145]) but the sixth paragraph ("Recognition for his work...") is verbatim.

Several articles by German Korn, 24.232.7.160 - apparently song lyrics by NOFX, but presented with no context or links, including:

Lee M 01:34, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

May 9

May 10

May 11

May 12


May 13

May 14

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&oldid=3580024"